Of course you aren't.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
The 2020 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Zeez
- Start date
- Status
Of course you aren't.
X
xavier7995
Could bill Clinton have actually been working to thwart the deep state????? Perhaps that is why he was impeached? Look at the facts, long history with trump...who is clearly fighting the good fight. They were the same team all along. Clinton pushed the third way, eroding the power of the dnc. Same as trump he was breaking the mold and stranglehold of the globalists cabal.
Mind bombs muh dudes!
Mind bombs muh dudes!
You don't have many friends do you?
St. Phatty
Active member
Seems like it was a distraction exercise.
While that blow job a thon was going on, the lead regulator of the largest financial market - credit derivatives - was forced to resign.
If you are interested, Brooksley Born was her name.
She was pushing Clinton to DO SOMETHING because she knew 2007/8/9 was coming.
But there were many $Trillions to be made on the way up.
So 3 banksters stood in her way - Greenspan, Rubin, and Reich.
Then when 2007-8-9 came along, the hyper wealthy recipients of credit derivative riches pleaded poverty & imminent destruction.
And got themselves a bail-out that has so far totalled a little over $4 Trillion.
White Beard
Active member
Brilliant! As crazy as the real bullshit!
For a brief note of reality, the ‘Third Way” crew were the ones who went all-in on Republican-lite policies and corporate “service”: they *are* the Dems we love to hate.
Not in a supposedly-free country
Is it a parody? Or is it real? Or is it that Hempy can’t tell?
Don’t try to find validity in an intentional send-up
Impeachment trials are not criminal trials nor are they structured the same...the rules and structure are set by the Senate leader and are voted in place by a Senate majority
The house is responsible for investigating impeachable offenses and taking witness testimony
A impeachable offense is supposed to be so blatant and overwhelming that both parties are in concurrence with the charges against a president.
A way to think about it is the president vs all citizens regardless of party...
In this case it is being used by only
One political party to try and force
The duly elected president from the opposing party out of office for political gain ...they know they cannot beat him in the next election
It may only take a simple majority of voters to elect a president...but it takes a super majority to remove him
Im taking an educated guess that you are replying to me. On your first point, the House wasn’t incompetent, just trying to get things done in a timely manner i suppose. On your second pointless point, I wasn’t aware that this was an MSM talking point, as I don’t watch any of the msm news sources, and i include Fox in the msm realm. The point is my own, but maybe shared by the msm world by coincidence, as it is a very valid point. The question is valid in both of the forums I posted it in. Calling the valid question a “shitpost” is not valid and is actually rude, but I wouldn’t expect anything different from you, fishy.
To simply state the obvious, the House is responsible for investigating and bringing charges. The senate is responsible for holding a trial. During trials in the USA, both the prosecution and the defense are allowed to call witnesses and bring forth evidence. So, i ask again, have you ever heard of a trial in the USA, where the prosecution is not allowed to call witnesses? I have never heard of that happening in the USA, but i am not an expert in these matters. Keeping witnesses from giving sworn testimony is antithetical to a fair and just trial. Smells fishy to me, in a real bad, fishy kind of way. I am sure you can understand that.
Sometimes it doesn't even matter if the majority of the voters didn't vote for him.
America is great again.
America is great again.
X
xavier7995
Dammit man, it was a post in jest.
I'd get impeached for a BJ.
Any day.
Any day.
Thank you for keeping your response civil, as opposed to others. I agree with most of what you stated, and disagree with a couple of things.
It is obvious to many non democrats such as myself that trump is both incompetent and corrupt. The current impeachment as well as the Mueller investigation clearly demonstrates both his incompetence and the corruption. This point has also been hammered home by many who served in his administration. It has also been shared by several republican Senators. Senator Graham recently stated something to the effect that trump’s administration is too incompetent to rise to the level of corruption levied by the democrats. None of his colleagues disagreed with that assessment. The Mueller report clearly demonstrated both incompetence and corruption by trump and his inner circle. Again, those statements have not been disputed by republican senators. Several republican senators privately stated that if the impeachment vote were held in private, that half of the republican senators would vote to remove him. The fact that so many republican senators still publicly back him in spite of their personal and private opinions speak volumes about their character. I bring this up, because I disagree that only one party believes he did something wrong. Also, just on the testimonies we’ve heard so far, over half the country believes trump committed a crime and should be impeached. That percentage is amazingly high. Certainly higher than Nixon’s or Clinton’s impeachments.
As to your other point, Nancy Pelosi made it very clear from the beginning that she did not want to impeach. She ignored his countless violations of the emoluments clause and also ignored the clear conclusions of the Mueller report. She publicly stated that impeachment would have negative consequences for the democrats in the next election. But when trump’s actions in Ukraine and his subsequent obstruction of a legal and proper House inquiry that was done by the rules established by republicans, she had no choice but to go down this path, even though the end result was known in advance. The constitution required it.
While I am aware that the senate gets to establish their own rules and procedures for a trial, a trial without evidence and without witness testimony really isn’t a trial, is it? While i cannot recall the latest poll, over 2/3rds of Americans want to hear witness testimony, myself among them. I would like to hear what Bolton, Kupperman, Mulvaney and Pompeo have to say under sworn testimony. Trump is free to call on both of the Bidens, and Rudy can bring his trove of Biden corruption that he claims to possess. Heck, he can call on the Pope and Jesus himself if he chooses. My point is that both sides should be able to call witnesses to bolster their case. To do otherwise clearly demonstrates to many that they are too cowardly to do so, because they fear the inevitable conclusions. To be sure, the result in the senate will be the same, but at least the American people will have more facts. Didn’t trump promise transparency? Allowing witnesses would be a good start. The truth will come out eventually, many of us prefer sooner to later.
Last edited:
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
If Bolton and the others actually had something damming to say the house would have done their best to bring them in to testify but they didn't because it's most likely a nothing burger. That being said I would be fine with them testifying if the Bidens also have their day but I really don't care one way or another.
Absolem
Active member
Not true.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...0200120-hxxffuabdfghdjwrxjp6h3ombi-story.html
"President Trump falsely claimed Monday that House Democrats didn’t try to secure testimony from ex-national security adviser John Bolton as part of their impeachment inquiry, accusing them of being “in too much of a rush.”
"But Trump ordered Bolton and several other former and current administration officials to stonewall any and all House impeachment requests for testimony and records.
Bolton complied with Trump’s orders and made it clear to Democrats that he would take them to court if they subpoenaed him, reasoning that a federal judge should decide which party to listen to."
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ld-decide-on-witnesses-bolton-testimony-poses
"Trump instructed Bolton, Mulvaney and other current and former officials not to testify under subpoena in connection with the impeachment inquiry in the House, asserting executive branch immunity. The Democratic-controlled House voted to impeach Trump for obstructing Congress by blocking witnesses and document production, in addition to abusing his power in his dealings with Ukraine."
I think you got that backwards.
Why do you believe Bolton refered to the whole situation as a drug deal and advised everyone to talk to their lawyers. Why do you believe they will not release any of the paperwork? What is the benefit in blocking witnesses to a nothing burger?
Hempy McNoodle
Well-known member
I have a feeling that the prosecution is falling for another trap and the witnesses that they want are going to harm the prosecutions case badly. It is starting to look like Lev Parnas is working for Trump against the Bidens. Wait and see. Who is 'Mr. Z?' 
Last edited:
To all the pearl clutching leftist, crying about impeachment, better invest in Kleenex. No one believes that you don't know that nothing in this impeachment is valid. If the Democrats wanted witnesses they had the power they failed to even try. Please continue to cry and whine, it's just so sweet.
I can only offer you some facts and opinions
1 opinions vary widely on Trump...as you know we all have opinions this is nothing new and hold little merit as to the running of the government in place...those of the overwhelming electoral college votes have voted their opinion and placed this president in office for a 4 year term
For example in your post you have stated your opinion of trump and have already determined him guilty
Before a trial has been concluded...
This is based on your opinion...
And despite your polling numbers stated...on average of all recent polls
It shows a 50/50 split on impeachment opinions
The rules on the responsibilities for inpeachment procedures are in the constitution and are in place for specific reasonings
Pelosi also noted that a impeachment by one party only
Would present a dangerous and losing proposition...this was stated by Hamilton himself as he feared that a one sided inpeachment does not represent the will of an entire nation and in using it for a political tool to undo an election can only reduce its power in future political
Situations...and it will be just as sure as the sun will rise.do you think pissed off repubs wont hesitate to impeach the next demo president?
Do you see the damage that may arise from a frivolous one sided impeachment?
Case?
Also just to show the power of the Senate in impeachment...they could vote to call just witnesses for the defense and not allow any for the prosecution,if they choose too....maybe unpopular but absolutely doable...just as they could vote to dismiss this trial at any point if they choose
- Status
